OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Correspondence Log
October 5, 2022 through October 18, 2022
Date Received From Subject
October 5, 2022 Anonymoose All communications regarding SOTF 20084 - Immediate
disclosure request
October 7, 2022 Mary Holzer Consequences of drought and/or not enough water released from
reservoirs
October 10, 2022 Anonymoose Immediate produce Harlan
Kelly's attachments - SOTF
20084
Cindy Charles SFPUC Says "We're Still in a
Drought" But Hetch Hetchy
facilities & housing have lush
green lawns. Photos & Videos
attached
October 11, 2022 Stand Up Freedom PUC Madness
October 13, 2022 Jake Sigg Withdraw from the so-called
voluntary agreement with the
state regarding regulation of SF’s
Tuolumne River water diversions
October 15, 2022 Anonymoose Refer Herrera & Kelly to Attorney General for defying SOTF order
20084 Anonymous v Kelly and
PUC - Re: SOTF- Revised action
of item 9, File No. 20084: and
immediate disclosure request
October 18, 2022 Eric Brooks IMPORTANT: On Algae Blooms Hearing - Nature Is Giving
Humanity Our Final Extinction
Crisis Warning
From: Anonymoose (@journo anon)
To: Herrera, Dennis J; Commission; City Attorney"s Office (City Attorney, SF) Subject: Re: All communications regarding SOTF 20084 - Immediate disclosure request Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 10:48:26 PM
Attachments: signature.asc
ATT00001.txt
ATT00002.htm
To be clear this ALSO covers the supervisor of records petitions filed about the same request, and any communications about those petitions.
Regards,
Anonymoose
twitter.com/journo anon
a 2022 SPJ NorCal James Madison Freedom of Information Award Winner I'm not a lawyer; nothing herein is legal advice. If you are a public official, I may publish any of your communications regardless of any notice you send to me. ------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, October 5th, 2022 at 10:45 PM, Anonymoose (@journo_anon) wrote:
Dear PUC, its Commissioners, Dennis Herrera, City Attorney's Office, and David Chiu (each separately):
Please produce on a rolling basis every record within the constructive possession of the PUC, its Commissioners, Dennis Herrera, City Attorney's Office, and/or David Chiu regarding the search, redaction, production, re-redaction, purported retraction(s), re-productions, response to complaint, communications with press, and every other communication regarding (a) SOTF 20084 and (b) the requests from [email protected]
around June 11, 2020 underlying the
foregoing complaint; in exact copies, with all attachments, links, TO/FROM/CC/BCC, formatting, etc.
Includes texts, chats, emails, and any other form of record on public or private property.
To refresh your memory SOTF 20084 is about my request regarding communications between Harlan Kelly and Walter Wong (among other things), that PUC released unredacted, purported to retract, re-released in mostly redacted form, and then months later after Kelly was charged re-released again in mostly unredacted form.
You may be aware that SOTF (finally) found a litany of violations by Kelly and PUC, and issued an order against PUC in this case earlier tonight.
If parts are, for example, attorney-client privileged you must minimally redact and justify with keys those portions.
Regards,
Anonymoose
twitter.com/journo_anon
a 2022 SPJ NorCal James Madison Freedom of Information Award Winner I'm not a lawyer; nothing herein is legal advice. If you are a public official, I may publish any of your communications regardless of any notice you send to me.
From: Mary Holzer
To: Commission
Cc: Peter Drekmeier
Subject: Consequences of drought and/or not enough water released from reservoirs Date: Friday, October 7, 2022 11:48:51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Commissioners at SFPUC,
If you have not seen this, you should definitely go online and take a look. This is a wakeup call for California and how we managed our watersheds. I’m sure there is a way to extrapolate the numbers of dead salmon into a huge drop in the salmon population, and thus the consequences to the salmon fishing industry. We cannot continue to throttle back on the release of water from our reservoirs without dire results.
Tens of thousands of salmon found dead after Canada drought
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-63136680
Salmon are going to begin spawning in late October. Last year there were only 186 salmon. The SFPUC needs to address this issue to prevent another terrible season.
In addition, toxic algae blooms in the Delta (caused largely by insufficient freshwater inflow) are causing serious problems for EJ communities.
Between all of its reservoir storage and excellent water rights in most years, the SFPUC is well positioned to leave more water in the river without risking running out of water. Right now the SFPUC has more than four years-worth of water in storage, and the last three years have been dry.
Bottom line . . . the SFPUC’s water demand projections are inflated and the Design Drought is way too conservative. The SFPUC has a responsibility to address these issues.
Sincerely,
Mary Holzer
From: Anonymoose (@journo anon)
To: Herrera, Dennis J; Commission
Cc: SOTF, (BOS); Pelham, Leeann (ETH); Cote, John W; GIVNER, JON (CAT); Ruski Augusto Sa, Mayara; Public Records
Subject: Immediate produce Harlan Kelly"s attachments - SOTF 20084 Date: Monday, October 10, 2022 12:01:16 AM
Attachments: image001.png
signature.asc
ATT00001.txt
ATT00002.htm
Hey Dennis
Regarding my 2020 request to PUC & Harlan Kelly, your agency was ordered on October 6 to "produce any and all attachments to the emails and text records that were sought in the Petitioner’s (Anonymous’) request." My request was comprehensive, so make sure you read it very carefully and search everywhere/everyone that PUC has constructive possession: https://www.muckrock.com/foi/san-francisco-141/inter-agency-text-messages- immediate-disclosure-request-sf-puc-94992/#comm-894694
Note, this is not a new request - this is SOTF's order and it must be complied with within 5 days.
Don't forget to look in every raw database of every text and email Harlan Kelly left anywhere on any PUC computer system, and in the original unredacted PDFs from Kelly. Kelly likely left copies of his phone databases on a PUC computer - which now means they are in your possession, for example in Android and iTunes/iPhone backups - I am aware those backups are often used to generate the kind of text message PDFs produced to me as they match a tool used by the Dept of Public Works to produce text messages.
Note that the order references
my request, be sure to be thorough.
When you and DCA Jon Givner covered for months for Harlan Kelly as City Attorney and Supervisor of Records, you perhaps believed you were untouchable, but now you are the department head of the PUC, so if you refuse to comply within 5 days of October 6 I will ask SOTF to again refer you to the Ethics Commission at an upcoming Compliance hearing. I'm sure Ethics will love conducting a public hearing on why Dennis Herrera covers up Harlan Kelly's text messages.
And unlike you unlawfully obfuscating your meetings,
Leeann can investigate these instead and distract from her own violations of the calendar law =D
Let's see that transparency you were recently so eager to give.
Time to pay the piper.
Cheers,
Anonymous
twitter.com/journo_anon
a 2022 SPJ NorCal Freedom of Information Award Winner
-------- Original Message --------
On Oct 6, 2022, 7:55 PM, Anonymoose (@journo_anon) <
wrote:
------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, October 6th, 2022 at 2:58 PM, SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Parties:
Below is a revised version of the action taken at the
Sunshine Task Force hearing of October 5, 2022.
Item 9, File No. 20084: Moved by Member Schmidt, seconded by Member Stein, to find that Harlen Kelly and the Public Utilities Commission violated Administrative Code, Sunshine Ordinance, Section(s) 67.21(b) by failing to respond to the records request in a timely and/or complete manner; 67.26 by failing to keep withholding to a minimum; 67.27 by failing to provide a specific justification for withholdings and California Public Records Act (CPRA), Section(s) 6253(b), by failing to provide responsive records in a timely and complete manner,
6253(d)(3) by failing to identify the name and title
of all persons responsible for denying access to the records. In addition, the SOTF orders the Public Unities Commission to produce any and all attachments to the emails and text records that were sought in the Petitioner’s (Anonymous’) request.
I will be on vacation beginning October 17, 2022, returning October 24, 2022.
Should you have a question regarding the Sunshine Task
Force, please contact Victor Young at [email protected].
Thank you.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
[email protected]
Tel: 415-554-7724
Fax: 415-554-5163
www.sfbos.org
Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted.
Members of the public are not required to
provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information—including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees—may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
From: Cindy Charles
To: Commission
Subject: SFPUC Says "We"re Still in a Drought" But Hetch Hetchy facilities & housing have lush green lawns. Photos & Videos attached
Date: Monday, October 10, 2022 4:22:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing to bring your attention to the fact that:
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission declared a Water Shortage Emergency in November 2021
San Francisco obtains most of its water supply from the Tuolumne River which has unnaturally low flows due to the continual high levels of diversions The SFPUC website states the following:
We need your help. We ask everyone to continue to use water wisely to help us make it through this drought.
Attached are some photos of lawns at Early Intake & Moccasin where there is HHWP housing as well as administrative buildings.
Here are 2 links to videos showing the lush, green lawns with lots of sprinklers in operation at Early Intake.
These sprinklers automatically run regularly in the morning around 8-9 am. The videos & photos were taken from the public road which leads to the Forest Service Trailhead to Preston Falls.
Download Attachment
Available until Nov 9, 2022
Download Attachment
Available until Nov 9, 2022
Reducing water use during this record drought is a priority for City residents including myself.
We have been remarkably successful and vigilant working to reduce water use during this continuing drought crisis.
But-- apparently the same standards don’t apply to the folks at HHWP???
Can you please provide the justification for the difference in accountability for wise water use during this serious drought?
Cindy Charles
San Francisco Native & current Resident
This is not being water smart.
From: Jake Sigg
To: Commission
Subject: Withdraw from the so-called voluntary agreement with the state regarding regulation of SF’s Tuolumne River water diversions
Date: Thursday, October 13, 2022 2:23:03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear San Francisco Water,
Dear Mayor London Breed and SFPUC,
I am writing to urge the SFPUC to withdraw from the so-called voluntary agreement with the state regarding regulation of SF’s Tuolumne River water diversions. Although not final, the agreement was developed only after locking Native American tribes, disadvantaged downstream communities, fishing and conservation groups, and the public out.
We call on the SFPUC to change its position and embrace science-based environmental protections for the Tuolumne River, the San Francisco Bay-Delta, and our declining salmon runs. This is urgent because SFPUC staff is fighting efforts to heal the river and the Bay and Delta it flows into. Because of water diversions by the SFPUC and other diverters, salmon have fared more poorly on the Tuolumne than on any other salmon river in the Central Valley.
In addition, the SFPUC is far behind communities like Orange County when it comes to reducing reliance on water diversions by investing in modern water management tools like water recycling.
The SFPUC’s position needs to change to align with the strong commitment San Franciscans have to protecting the environment.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jake Sigg
San Francisco, CA 94122
From: Anonymoose (@journo anon)
To: Ruski Augusto Sa, Mayara; SOTF, (BOS); Herrera, Dennis J; Feitelberg, Brittany K; Pelham, Leeann (ETH); Ethics Commission, (ETH); City Attorney"s Office (City Attorney, SF); Commission; Board of Supervisors, (BOS) Cc: Matt Yankee
Subject: Refer Herrera & Kelly to Attorney General for defying SOTF order 20084 Anonymous v Kelly and PUC - Re: SOTF - Revised action of item 9, File No. 20084: and immediate disclosure request Date: Saturday, October 15, 2022 9:11:55 AM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.png
SOR response.pdf
2022.10.14 SFPUC Response Letter to Oct. 6 SOTF Order.pdf publickey - [email protected] - 0xAA760C40.asc signature.asc
ATT00001.txt
ATT00002.htm
Dear SOTF,
as a public communication, also to SFPUC commissioners
Please schedule this complaint and order in 20084 Anonymous v. Harlan Kelly and SFPUC for a compliance review. The response of the PUC does not comply with the broad scope of the Order made by SOTF.
The mover Member Schmidt very carefully stated that *any and all* attachments (in PUC's possession, responsive to my request) must be provided. It is on the tape and in the written communication from the Administrator. Please schedule the hearing(s) and refer Dennis Herrera (current PUC dept head and ultimately responsible for their current production), Harlan Kelly Jr., and SFPUC to enforcement authorities.
Given that the
request and records concern local corruption and that the Ethics Commission remains incapable or unwilling to confront City officials for violating the Sunshine Ordinance, in this case, a notification to the Attorney General under Admin Code 67.21(e) is required
by law of SOTF ("If the custodian refuses or fails to comply with any such order within 5 days, the Sunshine Task Force shall notify the district attorney or the attorney general who may take whatever measures she or he deems necessary to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance."). Unlike the Ethics Commission, there is less reason to believe the Attorney General will simply bury your referral. And having the AG be aware of what happened in this request is important.
1. PUC states: "In response to this last part of the Order, the SFPUC produced to the Complainant all non-exempt attachments – these records are available at this link. However, regarding the text exchange that is the subject of this Complaint, the SFPUC does not possess, and has never possessed, the “attachments,” including the images, videos or audio files, mentioned in the text exchange between Mr. Harlan Kelly Jr. and Mr. Walter Wong." (emphasis mine)
The PUC argues it has provided all non-exempt attachments - i.e. attachments that PUC believes in their own judgement are non-exempt. But the PUC's chance to argue attachments were exempt has already occurred - and they have lost. The SOTF's order is very clear - "any and all" is expansive language almost never heard in SOTF motions, but it is was specifically chosen in the order in my favor. If PUC now refuses to provide any and all attachments to the emails and texts responsive to my request, claiming their own exemption judgement takes priority over SOTF's, PUC is defying SOTF's order.
2. PUC further states: "The SFPUC has never possessed a copy of this record that makes the images, videos, and audio files attached to text messages exchanged between Mr.Kelly and Mr.
Wong accessible, and SFPUC has no means of now gaining possession of these records to review or produce them."
This is also false. As the City Attorney's office has stated to SOTF in response to the SOTF's recent orders in my favor regarding the former Redistricting Task Force members, former public officials remain obligated to comply with sunshine requests remaining outstanding at the time of their leaving public office.
As you know, I filed the request and the complaint long before Kelly resigned. Therefore, PUC can simply go to Kelly and demand the records from him, and then provide those to me - in order to complete my request. Why hasn't PUC reached out to Kelly demanding the records?
Furthermore - this is an Immediate Disclosure Request to Dennis Herrera (current dept head of PUC) and the PUC for (1) all records, in whole or in part, of archives, databases, or backups of Harlan Kelly Jr's mobile phones or text messages on them - and (2) the full
names of such files, in whole or in part, in the constructive possession of PUC. Be certain to check iTunes and anywhere else on Kelly's former workstations or network drives.
Such archives would contain the attachments at issue in the Order. You must minimally withhold.
Further complaints will be filed at 12:01am Oct 19 if Herrera does not comply.
3. PUC finally cites a supervisor of records petition response denying my petition in their response. But this response to your order is not a chance for PUC to get another shot at arguing their case. They lost.
Most importantly, this means Herrera is citing himself (he was the Supervisor of Records at the time, and the SoR letter is signed under his name) to defy your order. His own arguments about why he is correct have no relevance.
Regards,
Anonymous
twitter.com/journo_anon
a 2022 SPJ NorCal Freedom of Information Award Winner
-------- Original Message --------
On Oct 14, 2022, 5:10 PM, Ruski Augusto Sa, Mayara < [email protected]> wrote:
Dear Ms. Leger and Complainant,
Please find attached SFPUC’s response and supporting document.
Thanks,
Mayara Ruski Augusto Sa
SFPUC Public Records Senior Analyst, External Affairs
Cell: 415-680-6683
Pronouns: she, her, hers
From: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 2:58 PM
To: Anonymous
Cc: Ruski Augusto Sa, Mayara <[email protected]> Subject: SOTF - Revised action of item 9, File No. 20084
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Parties: Below is a revised version of the action taken at the Sunshine Task Force hearing of October 5, 2022.
Item 9, File No. 20084: Moved by Member Schmidt, seconded by Member Stein, to find that Harlen Kelly and the Public Utilities Commission violated Administrative Code, Sunshine Ordinance, Section(s) 67.21(b) by failing to respond to the records request in a timely and/or complete manner; 67.26 by failing to keep withholding to a minimum;
67.27 by failing to provide a specific justification for withholdings and California Public Records Act (CPRA), Section(s) 6253(b), by failing to provide responsive records in a timely and complete manner,
6253(d)(3) by failing to identify the name and title of all persons responsible for denying access to the records. In addition, the SOTF orders the Public Unities Commission to produce any and all attachments to the emails and text records that were sought in the Petitioner’s (Anonymous’) request.
I will be on vacation beginning October 17, 2022, returning October 24, 2022. Should you have a question regarding the Sunshine Task Force, please contact Victor Young at [email protected]
. Thank you.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
[email protected]
Tel: 415-554-7724
Fax: 415-554-5163
www.sfbos.org
Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information—including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees—may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
Direct Dial: (415) 554-4700
Email: [email protected]
CITY HALL ∙ 1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, CITY HALL ROOM 234 ∙ SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-4682 RECEPTION: (415) 554-4700 ∙ FACSIMILE: (415) 554-4699
March 8, 2021
Sent via email ([email protected] and [email protected])
Re: Petitions to Supervisor of Records
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter responds to your petitions sent via email to the Supervisor of Records on July 9, 2020 and February 22, 2021, both concerning your June 11, 2020 request to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”) and former SFPUC General Manager Harlan Kelly, Jr. for communications involving Mr. Kelly. Specifically, on June 11, 2020, you requested that the SFPUC provide texts, emails, and chat messages with various individuals. Relevant to these petitions, your June 11 request in part sought the following records:
All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group/Jaidin Associates (including but not limited to [email protected], [email protected], or any email address ending with jaidin.net ), on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)) We understand that in response to your June 11 request, and consistent with the longstanding advice of the City Attorney’s Office as described in our Office’s public memorandum dated March 24, 2017, the SFPUC asked Mr. Kelly to conduct a search of his personal cell phone and email accounts and produce all responsive records related to City business. Mr. Kelly provided the SFPUC with a document containing a series of text messages between himself and Mr. Wong. Mr. Kelly redacted a significant number of text messages in the document, asserting that the redacted communications between him and Mr. Wong did not relate to City business. Following the standard practice of City departments and the general guidance of the City Attorney’s Office under the Supreme Court’s decision in City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.5th 608 (2017), the SFPUC relied on Mr. Kelly to prepare the redactions, and did not ask to review the unredacted text messages before producing the document in response to the June 11 records request. The SFPUC responded to your June 11 request by providing responsive records on July 2 and July 6, 2020, including the document prepared by Mr. Kelly. The SFPUC’s reliance on Mr. Kelly to produce a redacted version of his text messages was appropriate, consistent with San Jose, and consistent with this Office’s longstanding legal advice.
On July 7, 2020, after the SFPUC provided you with the document prepared by Mr. Kelly including redacted text messages, you informed the SFPUC that Mr. Kelly had not properly redacted the text messages, so a member of the public or the SFPUC’s staff could make the redacted text visible on a computer. As the SFPUC explained in its letter to you on February 22, 2021, subsequent events in 2020 caused the SFPUC to reconsider whether it was appropriate for
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Letter to Anonymous
March 8, 2021
the agency to review the text messages in their original, unredacted form. In light of the unique and extraordinary situation described in the SFPUC’s letter to you, the SFPUC reviewed the unredacted text messages to determine whether they were clearly private or unrelated to City business. On February 22, 2021, the SFPUC sent you a second version of the document with fewer portions of the text message exchange redacted.
Your July 9, 2020 petition asked the Supervisor of Records to examine the original unredacted records and “determine that some or all of the records or portions thereof withheld from disclosure or not yet disclosed are public.” We have reviewed the unredacted text exchange and the SFPUC’s redactions in the version the SFPUC provided to you on February 22.
Based on that review, we find that the SFPUC appropriately redacted portions of the text messages that do not contain information relating to the conduct of the public’s business and therefore do not constitute public records responsive to your request (see Cal. Gov’t Code § 6252(e); City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.5th 608 (2017) (San Jose)), would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (Cal. Const. Art. I, Sec. 1; Cal. Gov’t Code § 6254(c)), or would disclose confidential personnel information (Cal. Gov’t Code § 6254(c)).
Your February 22, 2021 petition asked the Supervisor of Records to determine that image, video, and audio files attached to text messages exchanged between Mr. Kelly and Mr.
Wong are “at least in part public.” The SFPUC does not currently have—and never had— possession of those attachments. As described above and in the SFPUC’s February 22 letter to you, the SFPUC relied on Mr. Kelly to conduct a search of his personal cell phone and email accounts and produce all responsive records related to City business. Mr. Kelly produced the PDF document that the SFPUC provided to you in July 2020. Mr. Kelly did not produce copies of the attached image, video, or audio files to the SFPUC, presumably based on his determination that the attached files were unrelated to City business. As noted above, it was appropriate for the SFPUC to rely on Mr. Kelly to review his text messages and produce responsive records. When the SFPUC determined it was appropriate to review the unredacted messages after Mr. Kelly’s resignation, it reviewed and produced only the files in its possession.
Because the SFPUC did not have possession of, or access to, the image, video, and audio files, it could not independently review Mr. Kelly’s determination and evaluate for itself whether the attached files might relate to public business.
For the reasons stated above, your petitions are denied.
Very truly yours,
DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
Jon Givner
Deputy City Attorney
OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Sunshine Ordinance Task Force
SENT VIA EMAIL
October 14, 2022
Re: Response to SOTF Determination re Complaint N. 20084
Dear Honorable Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force:
We write to respond to the portion of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force’s (“Task Force”) October 6 Order regarding Complaint No. 20084 (Order) that is italicized below:
Item 9, File No. 20084: Moved by Member Schmidt, seconded by Member S
tein, to find that Harlen [sic] Kelly and the Public Utilities Commission violated Administrative Code, Sunshine Ordinance, Section(s) 67.21(b) by failing to respond to the records request in a timely and/or complete manner; 67.26 by failing to keep withholding to a minimum; 67.27 by failing to provide a specific justification for withholdings and California Public Records Act (CPRA), Section(s) 6253(b), by failing to provide responsive records in a timely and complete manner, 6253(d)(3) by failing to identify the name and title of all persons responsible for denying access to the records. In addition, the SOTF orders the Public Unities [sic] Commission to produce any and all attachments to the emails and text records that were sought in the Petitioner’s (Anonymous’) request.
In response to th
is last part of the Order, the SFPUC produced to the
Complainant all non-exempt attachments – these records are available at this link. However, regarding the tex t exchange that is the subject of this Complaint, the SFPUC does not possess, and has never possessed, the “attachments,” including the images, videos or audio files, mentioned in the text exchange between Mr. Harlan Kelly Jr. and Mr. Walter Wong.
As previ
ously communicated to the Task Force and the Complainant, consistent with the longstanding advice of the City Attorney’s Office as described in the March 24, 2017 memorandum [regarding the City of San Jose v. Superior Court decision], the SFPUC asked Mr. Kelly to conduct a search of his personal cell phone and email accounts and produce all responsive records related to City business. In response, Mr. Kelly provided a document containing a series of text messages between himself and Mr. Wong beginning January 1,
2015. Mr. Kelly redacted a significant number of text messages in the document, asserting that the redacted communications between him and Mr.
Wong did not relate to City business. Following the standard practice of City departments and the general guidance of the City Attorney’s Office, the SFPUC relied on Mr. Kelly to prepare the redactions, and did not ask to review the unredacted text messages before producing the document to the Complainant in response to the Complainant’s records request. The SFPUC then took an additional step to provide the Complainant with more information. On February 22, 2021, the SFPUC produced to the Complainant a significantly less- redacted draft of this text exchange with an explanation of the reason for the additional production.
Mr. Kelly resigned in November 2020. The SFPUC never had access to Mr.
Kelly’s personal phone. All copies of this text exchange in the possession of the SFPUC are PDFs that do not contain or provide accessible links to or copies of the images, videos, or audio files requested by the Task Force in its Order.
The SFPUC has never possessed a copy of this record that makes the images, videos, and audio files attached to text messages exchanged between Mr.
Kelly and Mr. Wong accessible, and SFPUC has no means of now gaining possession of these records to review or produce them.
In response to a Supervisor of Records petition filed by the Complainant, on March 8, 2021, the Supervisor of Records addressed this very issue, concluding that the SFPUC does not possess or have access to the attachments in question, and hence, could not produce them in response to the Complainant’s request. (See Supervisor of Records Response, attached). The March 8, 2021 response concluded that:
the SFPUC does not currently have—and never had—possession of these attachments. As described above and in the SFPUC’s February 22 letter to [Complainant and the Task Force], the SFPUC relied on Mr.
Kelly to conduct a search of his personal cell phone and email accounts and produce all responsive records related to City business. Mr. Kelly produced the PDF document that the SFPUC provided to [Complainant] in July 2020. Mr. Kelly did not produce copies of the attached images, videos, or audio files to the SFPUC, presumably based on his determination that the attached files were unrelated to City business. As noted above, it was appropriate for the SFPUC to rely on Mr. Kelly to review his text messages and produce responsive records. When the SFPUC determined it was appropriate to review the unredacted messages after Mr. Kelly’s resignation, it reviewed and produced only the files in its possession. Because the SFPUC did not have possession of, or access to, the images, videos, and audio files, it could not independently review Mr. Kelly’s determination and evaluate for itself whether the attached files might relate to public business.
In summary, SFPUC has fully responded to the Order by producing all non- exempt attachments in its possession. We remain available to answer any further questions in response to the Task Force’s Order. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mayara Ruski Augusto Sa
SFPUC Public Records Senior Analyst
Encl. Supervisor of Records Response
cc: Anonymous Complainant
From: Nancy DeStefanis
To: Mayor London Breed
Cc: Commission
Subject: Withdraw from the SF Tuolumne River water diversions Date: Sunday, October 16, 2022 10:26:42 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor London Breed and SFPUC,
I am writing to urge you and the SFPUC to withdraw from the so-called voluntary agreement with the state regarding regulation of SF’s Tuolumne River water diversions. Although not final, the agreement was developed only after locking Native American tribes, disadvantaged downstream communities, fishing and conservation groups, and the public out.
We call on the SFPUC to change its position and embrace science-based environmental protections for the Tuolumne River, the San Francisco Bay- Delta, and our declining salmon runs. This is urgent because SFPUC staff is fighting efforts to heal the river and the Bay and Delta it flows into. Because of water diversions by the SFPUC and other diverters, salmon have fared more poorly on the Tuolumne than on any other salmon river in the Central Valley.
In addition, the SFPUC is far behind communities like Orange County when it comes to reducing reliance on water diversions by investing in modern water management tools like water recycling.
The SFPUC’s position needs to change to align with the strong commitment San Franciscans have to protecting the environment.
Thank you.
--
Nancy H. DeStefanis, Executive Director
San Francisco Nature Education
office: 415-205-0776
[email protected]
www.sfnature.org
Monitoring the Great Blue Heron colony in Golden Gate
Park since 1993
From: Eric Brooks
To: Aaron Peskin; Angulo, Sunny (BOS); PeskinStaff (BOS); Preston, Dean (BOS); Smeallie, Kyle (BOS); Kilgore, Preston (BOS); PrestonStaff (BOS); Melgar, Myrna (BOS); Heiken, Emma (BOS); Carrillo, Lila (BOS); Low, Jen (BOS); MelgarStaff (BOS); Major, Erica (BOS); Calvillo, Angela (BOS) Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Chastain, Amy; Ordikhani, Masood; Scarpulla, John; Spitz, Jeremy M; Maxwell, Sophie; Herrera, David; [email protected]; Commission; [email protected] Subject: IMPORTANT: On Algae Blooms Hearing - Nature Is Giving Humanity Our Final Extinction Crisis Warning Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 8:53:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi all,
Please record this as public comment on your October 17, 2022 hearing and presentations, on SF Bay Nitrogen/Phosphorus Loading & Algae Blooms, at the San Francisco Land Use & Transportation Committee.
To see how deeply serious are the potential wider implications of the recent unprecedented algae bloom die off in the San Francisco Bay, please read and share the following two-page article. It lays out the alarming similarity between the Permian Extinction 250 million years ago, and the current extinction being caused by humans. It highlights building evidence, that the climate and extinction crisis is worse, and is happening faster, than previously believed.
Making the connection with the recent unprecedented algae-bloom triggered mass die-off of life in Oakland's Lake Merritt and the San Francisco Bay, the details below show a dire warning of possible Permian Extinction conditions and their implications, in our own lifetimes.
IMPORTANT: Even though this is scary stuff, it gives us leverage, because we can share this reality with others to show them that time is *up* and humans need to act *now* to turn this crisis around. So please share this warning widely.
View on substack at:
https://ericbrooks.substack.com/p/nature-is-giving-humanity-our-final Nature Is Giving Humanity Our Final Extinction Crisis Warning The joint climate and extinction crisis is now taking a dangerous turn for the worse, a turn which is giving us the most dire warning in our entire 300,000 year human history. It is an alarm, telling us we are facing our own near term extinction if we do not rapidly and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reverse deforestation, and curb farm and sewage runoff.
Current Human Caused Crisis Dangerously Similar To Ancient Extinction Event For over three decades as a full time environmental organizer, I have educated myself on, and fought to reverse, the joint climate and extinction crisis. Part of my education has been to learn about ancient mass extinctions which can be compared to the one humans are causing now.
The most similar and important of these was the Permian Extinction, 250 million years ago.
During that extinction, large volcanic eruptions in Siberia increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causing streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, and the oceans to heat up, and to change in acidity. Various factors triggered by the eruptions (including deforestation) increased nutrient content in these water bodies (as humans are currently increasing it with both agricultural and urban sewage waste run-off, and most importantly, through deforestation).
During the late Permian these conditions combined to trigger massive 'blooms' of oxygen depleting algae and microbes which suffocated and killed nearly all water based life. Almost all life in the oceans died. Increased CO2, methane, and toxic emissions, along with a collapse of the global food web, all arising from this ocean die-off, then provoked a similar die-off on land.
By the end of the Permian collapse, 95% of life on Earth was killed and around 75% of all species went extinct. See:
Wiki on the Permian Extinction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic extinction event "Lethal microbial blooms delayed freshwater ecosystem recovery following the end- Permian extinction" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8448769 The Current 6th Great Extinction
Human caused global warming, along with deforestation, land degradation, and other triggers of unnaturally high nutrient content in our water bodies, are now creating the same conditions as those during the Permian Extinction. We are currently seeing a Sixth Great Extinction because of these impacts. But this extinction is shockingly happening 10 to 100 times faster than the Permian Extinction. Animal and plant species are now going extinct 1,000 times faster than the Earth's normal extinction rate.
The two leading causes of this crisis are 1) animal agriculture - which is eating up 85% of the world's productive land, and is rapidly destroying forests, to produce only about 25% of our food value, while causing massive nutrient runoff into our water bodies, and 2) the burning of fossil fuels. See:
The Anthropocene Extinction"
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/73ab69fedac54685ae837562e3389d13 WorldWatch Institute "Livestock and Climate Change"
https://awellfedworld.org/world-watch-magazine
A New Age Of Alarming, Deadly Algae Blooms Is Happening Now Over the past two decades we have been seeing an alarming increase in deadly algae blooms in ponds and lakes (and more recently in streams and rivers). Some of these blooms have even killed pets and people swimming through impacted waters (a problem previously almost never heard of). Algae bloom events have become so bad and widespread, that some states now test water bodies to determine if it is safe for animals and people to swim in, and drink from them. See:
"How groups monitor toxic algae in the absence of state testing" https://www.iowapublicradio.org/environment/2022-09-09/testing-the-waters- how-groups-monitor-toxic-algae-in-the-absence-of-state-testing In my climate and extinction crisis work, as I have noticed more and more reports of deadly algae blooms in ponds and lakes, I have had in the back of my mind that these events might be a warning that the Earth's oceans may be next, and soon. My concerns have now been confirmed by a recent far more alarming die-off event.
The Final Warning - Major San Francisco Bay & Lake Merritt Die-Off In late August 2022, Oakland California's very large Lake Merritt (part salt water because it is connected to the greater San Francisco Bay) suffered a near complete die-off, of all its life. The algae bloom which caused this die off was not limited to Lake Merritt, but also ominously spread into the far larger San Francisco Bay itself. It was the largest algae bloom in the San Francisco Bay's history. See the details in the two videos at the end of this article.
The Oceans Are Next
The reason this die off is far more alarming is clear. Previous algae bloom die-offs which have been this extreme, have primarily been seen in smaller ponds and lakes. But this new die-off has entered a bay of the Pacific Ocean, and could signal that conditions are now building in the world's oceans that could trigger a mass die-off in all oceans worldwide, in our lifetimes.
While we cannot be absolutely certain that this is what is taking place, the signs are now strong enough, and the consequences serious enough, that the only safe course of action is for all of us to take immediate measures to make certain a collapse of the world's oceans does not hit us in this century.
Take Action In Your Local Community & In What You Eat
The Climate and Extinction Crisis is no longer merely a crisis. It is dangerously nearing an end stage that we must immediately reverse.
We can no longer wait for state, federal, or international government action. In the next decade we must take local action now to 1) build 100% local renewable energy, and universal mass transit in every community, 2) dramatically reduce nutrient runoff into our water bodies, bays and oceans, and 3) do everything we can to reverse deforestation.
And each of us as individuals must call on ourselves to shift as much as we can, as quickly as we can, to far more plant based diets, because that shift will do more to help achieve these changes, than any other personal choice we can make.
--
Videos On Lake Merritt & San Francisco Bay Die-Off
What A Mass Die-Off Looks Like: Algae Bloom in Oakland’s Lake Merritt (5 min) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4lhLrT6JWA
(video taken by Mitch Jeserich)
Mitch Jeserich & Damon Tighe detailing Lake Merritt & SF Bay Die-Off (22 min) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9wUjH-nN2g
Eric Brooks
Campaign Coordinator, Our City SF
OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Form Email Correspondence Log
Please Invest in Solutions to Prevent Harmful Algae Blooms & Fish Kills October 2, 2022 through October 18, 2022
Date Received From City
October 2, 2022 Teresa Appleton Sacramento
Lia Sweeney Redwood City
October 4, 2022 Aaron Isherwood Berkeley
Drew Madsen San Francisco
October 5, 2022 Zachariah Epperson San Francisco
October 6, 2022 Sky Aulita San Francisco
Pam Brigg McKown El Cerrito
October 9, 2022 Karen Mercury Vallejo
October 11, 2022 Erika Pringsheim Lafayette
October 13, 2022 Nancy Shaw Berkeley
October 16, 2022 Ann Nore San Francisco
Tim Eichenberg San Francisco
October 18, 2022 Marek Michalowski San Francico
From: [email protected] on behalf of Teresa via San Francisco Baykeeper To: Commission
Subject: Please Invest in Solutions to Prevent Harmful Algae Blooms & Fish Kills Date: Sunday, October 2, 2022 6:49:03 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: Mayor London Breed
CC: SFPUC General Manager Dennis Herrera, SFPUC Commission, and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Dear Mayor Breed,
I urge you to direct San Francisco’s Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to aggressively increase the city’s investment in water recycling today.
This summer, a large harmful algal bloom has spread across the Bay, leaving unimaginable numbers of dead fish in its wake. We’re still learning about this particular bloom, but what we do know is that San Francisco’s sewage effluent contributes to excessive levels of nutrients in San Francisco Bay that make the Bay fertile territory for the spread of harmful algae blooms.
Water recycling and other wastewater management technologies can help by reducing the volume of polluted discharges into the Bay. In addition, by producing potable supplies, water recycling will reduce San Francisco’s reliance on water diverted from the Tuolumne River, increasing the city’s resilience to climate change effects on water supply.
Other cities have learned the lessons of California’s unpredictable climate and are quickly adopting water recycling to reduce their burden on the ecosystem, while increasing the reliability of their supply. Orange County gets more than 75 percent of its water through its water reuse program. Las Vegas recycles nearly all of its water used indoors. And Los Angeles is on the path to reusing 100 percent of its wastewater by 2035.
But, as San Francisco’s draft Urban Water Management Plan recently revealed, the city currently has no plans to make recycled water widely available in the next 25 years. Instead, the city is pursuing multiple expensive and misguided lawsuits so that it can continue to rely, almost exclusively, on the Tuolumne River—one of the state’s most overtapped rivers—for the next several decades. San Francisco and large agribusiness water districts divert four out of every five gallons of water that flow in the Tuolumne River during a typical year.
This overuse has caused the river’s once mighty Chinook Salmon populations to crash. Meanwhile, low freshwater flows contribute to deteriorating water quality—including harmful algae blooms—in the Delta and San Francisco Bay.
I agree with Supervisor Aaron Peskin that “it is time for San Francisco and our sister cities in the nine Bay Area counties to start looking at what kinds of infrastructure investments will need to be made as this becomes, sadly, the new normal.” It’s unacceptable for the city with the nation’s greenest reputation to shirk its responsibilities to conserve California’s precious and unpredictable water supply.
I support increasing river flows to protect San Francisco Bay’s fisheries, water quality, and recreation. The city should do its part to protect the Bay and its rivers—water recycling is a common-sense way to limit the city’s water use, increase the reliability of its supply, and protect the Bay from harmful wastewater treatment plant effluent.
Thank you,
Teresa Appleton
Sacramento, Ca